The ruling stems from a
dispute over whether the Town of Delafield Board of Review
properly reclassified two parcels Peter and Therese Ogden
own from agricultural to residential in 2016. The change
resulted in the Ogdens' property taxes increasing from
$17,000 to $886,000, according to court documents.

The board reclassified the
land because an assessor felt the parcels weren't being used
to sell crops commercially. The Ogdens countered that they
grow apples, hay and Christmas trees, all agricultural uses
as defined by the state Department of Revenue.

The Supreme Court ruled
unanimously that a business purpose isn't needed for an
agricultural classification. The court noted that state law
and administrative rules refer to growing the specific crops
the Ogdens were raising, not marketing, selling or profiting
from them.

"So long as land is
devoted primarily to 'agricultural use' as defined by our
statutes and rules, that use need not be carried out for a
business purpose in order for the land to qualify as
"agricultural land" for property tax
purposes," Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote.

The Ogdens' attorney, Paul
Zimmer of the O'Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong and Laing law
firm, said he's not sure how many other farmers may be in
similar situations as the Ogdens around the state. But he
said the decision ensures uniformity in how agricultural
land is taxed.

"Hopefully after today
assessors won't come to these off-hand conclusions about
what's not really in the law," Zimmer said. "The
whole purpose of the law is to help preserve Wisconsin's
farm land. This decision will help stop assessors from
coming up with some other reason to change the
classification. It's good for small farmers around the
state."

The Wisconsin Farm Bureau
Federation filed a brief in support of the Ogdens.
Federation attorney John Laubmeier said he didn't have any
data on whether assessors might be trying to reclassify
other agricultural land around the state based on the Town
of Delafield's stance but the Supreme Court ruling ensures
they can't drive up property taxes on farmers.

"If every farmer across
the state had to prove they ... made money on the particular
tract or not, that's not what the law requires,"
Laubmeier said. "If this had gone the other way, it
really would have had a significant impact on farmers at a
time when they really don't need that."